tcav.. mark.. john.. and jimc you guys always gave me very helpful KIND advice. looking for it again. i'm a mom/friend that shoots basketball (daughters, then friends, and now our high school and jr high) and also most of our extended family events, all for fun. I have a sony a700 and a GOOD BIT of equip. I do ok. I could stand some improvement and plan to work on that in this off season. here's the thing... I have for some years now wanted a Nikon. I was asked to go and shoot baseball for the high school and would need another lens (longer zoom) and decided that I just couldn't buy another sony lens, knowing that I really wanted to get a Nikon. so it's now or never..
Soooo, the Nikon d7100 looks nice?
and the other question is what would be the best way of selling my sony/Minolta gear?

If there are good reasons why this is a bad decision other than starting over with lens, do tell me. like if the d7100 or another Nikon you think is better is actually inferior for sports to the sony a700.

Any of the Nikon D5X00 and D7X00 would be good for what you want to do. The A700 could do ok, and it would be stabilized (not a big factor for what you want to do, though.)

The lens is the big expense, however. A unstabilized 70-200/2.8 lens from Tamron (for either Sony or Nikon) is $769. Sigma's stabilized 70-200/2.8 lens (for either Sony or Nikon) is $1,249. Tamron's stabilized version is $1,499. Sony's is $1,998, and Nikon's is $2,097.

Sony's 6.5 year old A700 is a fine camera, but it would be at a significant disadvantage when compared with today's Nikons for this application.

How much Sony gear do you have? I've had a lot of luck selling gear on eBay.

an extra battery.... I think that about wraps it up. the thing about selling to ppl sight unseen.. can you take the stuff somewhere and get it inspected. I wouldn't begin to be able to rate it as far as condition. it should be fine but I would want an expert opinion on that just to be sure?

Darlene, after reading your initial post several times, I have to ask. Would you be as well served getting a new Sony body, with all the latest improvements? I mean, you have a pretty impressive lens line up as is. Or are you just set on a Nikon?

__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

Have you tried your a700 with your tamron 70-200 2.8 ld di to do what you want? The A700 is quite a capable camera, and while the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is not the best lens for what you want to do, it should work ok.

It's my understanding that the Minolta 85/1.4 doesn't focus fast enough for sports/action, and at f/4.0, the 'Beercan' is too dim. So the only candidate for basketball in your current arsenal is the Tamron 70-200/2.8. If that isn't sufficient, you need to consider some alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawgwild

What about a new Sony body, Tom? Just a thought.

Yes, absolutely. While the A700 is still quite good, the lower noise and higher resolution of the newer models will definitely increase image quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darlenerenee

...I was asked to go and shoot baseball for the high school and would need another lens (longer zoom)...

Now we're talking about some real money.

Since you already have a 70-200/2.8, and want something longer, the list of candidates is short but illustrious. There's the Sigma 120-300/2.8 ($2,799) and ... well ... the Sigma 120-300/2.8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darlenerenee

...and decided that I just couldn't buy another sony lens, knowing that I really wanted to get a Nikon.

If you really want to go over to the Dark Side, any of the D5X00 or D7X00 models should work well, and the choice of lenses gets a little broader.

BTW, don't underestimate the value of that unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 on a stabilized body.

hawgwild: do you know how sometimes you have an itch.... I don't know. I feel like I've never been completely happy with the sony. and part of that is definite room for improvement on my part, which I will work on with some input from you guys later... I initially started with the Minolta 5d because son-in-law had 7d. he's gone now..

tcav: the 3 lens I use for basketball –50 1.7 my first, not much reach. I never go more than 2.0 app, usually around 2.2 as I like to have some dof. Don’t use this lens as much anymore85 1.4 it does good although I tend to cut all sorts of body parts off if I’m under the goal and again 2.2 aperture. I can use about 1600 iso with a shutter speed of around 320-400. I know that is TOO slow but when I go over 1600 the noise gets much more noticeable. I hate noise. and my 70-200 2.8 which I started using this year. I really love the versatility of this lens. with the 2.8 I do try to use the 1600 still but generally bump the iso up to 2000 or even 2500. Hate the noise. I use noise ninja as a plug-in on photoshop but I’m not savvy and not in love with the end result. That’s a topic for another day..

Remember I do this for fun, family, friends and our school, so they are happy with the results. I am a perfectionist and want to have much better results. I believe the newer cameras deal much better with noise? Also I am the designated family birthday party, get-together, so I want something with good color and quality as well. I haven’t been looking too long at the Nikons because I wouldn’t let myself J before so I’m not stuck on the d7100 but it seemed to be a good middle of the road?

Newer sony? Give me your thoughts here. Really. Forgetting for a moment about the gear I have *sigh*. noise at higher iso is a big consideration and of course the rest. Image quality, etc. etc.

Btw I went to my nephew’s HS baseball game yesterday evening. My first besides that one t-ball years ago. This one was not our school and the only place I could shoot was a space where the net opened and I could stick my camera and head around a pole…. Yeah. I LOVED it!! Now a baseball shooting junkie. Of course as I knew it would be, my 70-200 2.8 is TOO short AND as the sun went down, well so did my pictures.. even tho I raised the iso, the pictures just went to garbage mostly. Hmm. Ok we’ll save that for another day and another topic..Thanks, thanks, thanks

Baseball is going to be a bit difficult to shoot. Since you're talking HS level and you don't have access to shoot from the field, then you really want a 400mm lens. If you can shoot from inside the fence at home games you can get by with a 300mm lens. Of course, this also means you're not going to be shooting much when the sun gets low because I don't think you want to be buying 300mm or 400mm 2.8 lenses.

Now, Sony has a wonderful 70-400mm lens. The challenge is - while their newer cameras do a bit better in the noise department they still do worse than the competition with the exact same sensor. Part of that is Sony's processing and part is the translucent mirror.

Nikon has recently come out with an 80-400mm lens - around $1500. But this is an f5.6 lens so you're not going to use it in low light. If you want to shoot low light then the sigma 120-300 2.8 OS for $2800 is going to be your starting point.

Personally, my advice is to go with a longer lens and just worry about the shots in good light. you're doing this for family - you really don't need 200 photos from every game.

baseball will be secondary for sure! for family and my friends small kids I will make do and if the school wants good stuff then inside I must go. and probably before nightfall.. because even with the 2.8 last night once the sun went down the photos did also. if i decide to go Nikon i won't be getting a new lens for baseball this year. i will be trying to sell some sony gear and buying a Nikon and a good everyday lens. basketball lens next.

IMPORTANT STUFF to me: (and I tried to figure out how to do the quote thingy.. )

JOHNG: "Now, Sony has a wonderful 70-400mm lens. The challenge is - while their newer cameras do a bit better in the noise department they still do worse than the competition with the exact same sensor. Part of that is Sony's processing and part is the translucent mirror."
THAT is why i am really considering going to a Nikon tho i have some nice sony gear..
Basketball and everyday stuff is important. everyday stuff will be fine with most of the cameras i think.
basketball for me I think will come down to the camera that can handle high iso with very little noise.
tho i must say I looked at a review earlier where they were comparing the sony a65 to the Nikon d7000 and that review said the d7000 suffered the high iso noise?? i don't know what reviews are reputable... aaahhhh. that's why i come here for you guys input. i value it!

DxOMark.com is a great place to compare the performance of just the cameras. Your A700 has about the same signal to noise ratio as the current A65 and A57. but it's important to remember that resolution reduces the impact of noise. (As the resolution increases, the individual errant pixels are smaller and less obtrusive.) Your A700 has a 12MP sensor, while the A57 uses a 16MP sensor (a 33% increase) and the A65 has a 24MP sensor (a 100% increase.) So either of the A57 or the A65 will produce images that are superior to those from your A700. So if 1600 is the limit for your A700, you would probably be just as happy with 2000 on the A57 and maybe even 3200 or higher with the A65.

In addition, the A57 and A65 have slightly better dynamic range than your A700.

If you've tried to use your A700 with the Tamron 70-200/2.8 at ISO 1600 and still aren't satisfied with the results, jumping to the A57 or even the A65/A77 probably won't make enough difference to keep you in the Sony camp. But just to be sure, you might try renting an A65 or A77 from LensRentals.com, and see for yourself. (I think you should try this out before you decide to dump all those nice A-Mount lenses for a fraction of what they're worth.)

On the other hand, the Nikon 16MP D7000 and the 24MP D5200 are a stop or more better than the Sony models we're talking about, so you're much more likely to be able to do what you want with the Nikon you want anyway.

But I'd still rent an A65 before I did anything drastic, and if I could, I'd still hold onto that unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a stabilized body.